Ramada Inns, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 14, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 689 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

RAMADA INNS, INC 689
Ramada Inns, Inc. and Local 277, Hotel Services and
Waitresses Union, a/w Hotel and Restaurant
Employees ' International Union, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case 1-RC-13734
November 14, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On April 22, 1975, the Acting Regional Director
for Region I issued his Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which
he found appropriate, in agreement with the Petition-
er's request, a unit of "all housekeeping and laundry
employees," employed by the Employer at its East
Boston, Massachusetts, hotel and restaurant facility,
excluding, inter alia, "waitresses, waiters, hostesses,
cashiers, bus help, cooks, utility workers, bartenders,
banquet workers, maintenance, desk clerks, night
auditor, bellmen, and PBX operators:" Thereafter, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended,, the Employer filed a timely request
for review of the Acting Regional Director's decision
on the ground that in making the above unit finding
he departed from officially reported precedent. The
Petitioner filed opposition thereto.
By telegraphic order dated May 20, 1975, the
National Labor Relations, Board granted the request
for review and stayed the election pending decision
on review. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs on
review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review,
including the briefs on review, and makes the
following findings:
In granting the Petitioner's primary request for a
unit of housekeeping and laundry employees, the
Acting Regional Director relied, in part, on the facts
that these employees are separately supervised and
only occasionally perform functions other than those
for which they were hired. The Employer contends
that the record facts require the finding that the only
appropriate unit is hotelwide, including front desk
and restaurant employees. For the reasons stated
below, we reject the Employer's contention but shall
broaden the unit to include the classifications of
maintenancemen and bellmen.
The Employer's hotel and restaurant facility
consists of one 12-story building which contains 209
guestrooms, a restaurant, a lounge, banquet facilities,
and meeting rooms. The approximately 90 employees
working at the Employer's facility are under the
overall supervision of the general manager. Report-
ing to him are the food and beverage manager, the
front desk manager, and the housekeeper.
The food and beverage manager supervises the
restaurant, lounge, kitchen, and banquet facilities.
Under his supervision are the approximately 52
employees that work in these areas.' The record
reveals numerous instances of interchange of func-
tions and duties among these employees. Thus,
waiters and waitresses have performed the duties of
hostesses, cashiers, and bartenders; hostesses have
waited on tables; bartenders have served at ban-
quets; kitchen utility workers have bussed tables;
banquet employees have supplemented the regular
staff in the dining room; and busboys have washed
dishes and helped prepare food. In contrast to this,
the record reveals that these employees only infre-
quently perform the duties of other hotel employees.
The general manager specifically testified that he
could not recall that any of the restaurant employees
had ever made up rooms or worked in the laundry.
The record reveals only that busboys infrequently
deliver rollaway beds or cribs to guestrooms or drive
the guest van to the airport .2 The record also does
not reveal that the hotel employees regularly or
frequently perform the duties of the restaurant
employees. Thus, the housekeeping and laundry
employees come in contact with the restaurant only
to the extent of cleaning soiled linens, rugs, fixtures,
and drapes. These functions are normally performed
during the restaurant's off-hours. Only in emergency
situations have bellmen ever helped to bus the tables
in the restaurant. Maids, and to a lesser degree
maintenancemen and bellmen, occasionally, aid
banquet set-up employees in setting up the various
hotel banquet rooms. However, the record reveals
that the setting up and cleaning of some of the
banquet rooms and the meeting rooms are the
normal jobs of the housekeeping department.
There are approximately seven to eight front desk
employees, consisting of switchboard operators, desk
clerks, and a night auditor. These employees are
under the direct supervision of the front desk
manager. Their duties are interchangeable and
include checking in guests, answering the switch-
board, posting charges to guests' bills, receiving
1 These 52 employees are variously classified as waiters, waitresses, each of these classifications
hostesses , cashiers, busboys, cooks, kitchen utility workers, bartenders, and
banquet workers The record does not reveal the number of employees in
221 NLRB No. 83
2 It is the regular job of the bellmen to drive the guest van to the airport.
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
payments from guests, working the reservation
machine, providing information to_ guests, and
receiving complaints from guests. There is little
evidence on the record that the functions of the front
desk employees are ever performed by other hotel
employees. Thus, - the record reveals only one
occasion , which occurred during a slack business
period, where a housekeeping or laundry employee
performed the functions of a front desk employee.
On this occasion, a maid worked as a switchboard
operator,. However, this occurred after the maid had
finished her normal work and only because she had
expressed a desire to obtain switchboard experience.
Bellmen , who are stationed at a separate desk in the
front lobby, occasionally answer the switchboard or
give a guest a room registration form to fill out.
Though the record is unclear, it appears that bellmen
perform these functions only infrequently when there
are no front desk employees available. Similarly, the
record contains little evidence that the front, desk
employees perform the duties of other hotel employ-
ees. While the general manager testified that front
desk employees may be called on to make up a
guestroom or deliver a rollaway bed or crib to a
guestroom , the record reveals that this occurs
infrequently, i.e., only when a bellman is not
available to perform these tasks. The record reveals
no interchange of functions or duties between front
desk employees and maintenancemen.
There are 18 housekeeping and laundry employees,
consisting of maids, laundry employees, and house-
men, under the supervision of the housekeeper.
These employees perform the manual functions
suggested by their classifications. The remaining
hotel employees consist of seven bellmen and two
maintenancemen . The manual functions performed
by the maintenancemen and bellmen, like those of
the housekeeping and laundry employees, do not
require a high degree of skill or training. The record
reveals a regular and frequent overlap of functions
among these manual employees. Thus, housemen
regularly perform minor maintenance functions, such
as adjusting sinks or changing light bulbs in
guestroons .3 Housemen also substitute for bellmen
by driving the guest van to the airport.4 The general
manager testified that housemen have become
bellmen . Maids also perform minor maintenance
functions in the guestrooms. Further, during slack
business periods, maids have performed such, mainte-
3 The general manager testified that it would be a normal progression for
a houseman to progress into maintenance work
4 One houseman presently functions as a houseman-driver
5 It appears that this regularly occurs at least two to three times a week
6 Dunfey Family Corporation d/b/a Sheraton Motor Inn, 210 NLRB 790
(1974)
7 John Hammonds and Roy Winegardner, Partners, d/b/a 77 Operating
Company, d/b/a Holiday Inn Restaurant, 160 NLRB 927 (1966), enfd. 387
nance functions as painting hotel hallways and
rooms. Bellmen also frequently perform maintenance
functions during the evenings and nights. These
functions include minor repairs to guestroom TV's,
toilets, and sinks. Tools are kept at the front desk for
the bellmen to use in performing these maintenance
functions. Bellmen also maintain the tidiness of the
hotel, sweep under the canopy, and clean the guest
van. During the evenings and early mornings,
bellmen also perform duties which are normally
performed by the maids during the day. During these
hours, bellmen are called upon to clean and ready
vacant guestrooms if there is a demand, for such
rooms.5 For this purpose, a' special storeroom is
maintained for the bellmen on the hotel's sixth floor.
Bellmen are also occasionally required to deliver
rollaway beds and cribs to guestrooms and to answer
calls from guests for towels, soap, and clean linens
during these hours. Finally, during the hours when
the housekeeping department is closed, the bellmen
are responsible for keeping the lobby and lobby
restrooms clean.
The Board has long since abandoned the view that
only a hotelwide or motelwide unit is appropriate.6
Rather, the Board "consider[s] each case on the facts
peculiar to it in order to decide wherein lies the true
community of interest among particular employees"
and only "if functions and mutual interests are
highly integrated, [is] an overall unit alone appropri-
ate." 7
We are satisfied, on the record facts of this case,
that there is not such a high degree of integration of
functions and mutual interests between the restau-
rant and front desk employees and the other hotel
employees as to require the inclusion of these
employees in the requested unit of employees
engaged primarily in manual functions. The restau-
rant employees are separately supervised and they
engage in distinctive functions which do not regular-
ly bring them in contact with the other hotel
employees. Further, as revealed by the record, there
is very infrequent interchange of functions between
the restaurant employees and the other hotel employ-
ees.8 The front desk employees are likewise separate-
ly supervised and they are engaged in essentially
clerical functions. Also, as revealed by the record, the
front desk employees infrequently perform the
manual functions of the other hotel employees .9 The
fact that the restaurant and front desk employees,
F2d646(CA 4, 1967).
8 This case is factually distinguishable, in this respect , from both Days
Inn of America, Inc, 210 NLRB 1035 (1974); and West, Inc. d/b/a Holiday
Inn Southwest, 202 NLRB 781 (1973), cited by the Employer
9 The case of Lammons Hotel Courts, Inc d/b/a Holiday Inn-Atlanta
Northwest, 214 NLRB No. 145 (1974), relied on by the Employer, is, in our
opinion, factually distinguishable since there the facts established a regular
and frequent interchange of functions between the front desk employees
RAMADA INNS, INC. 691
like the other hotel employees, punch a timeclock,
are hourly paid, and receive like fringe benefits is not
controlling here, `since there exists only a minimal
integration of functions and mutual interest between
these and the other hotel employees.
Our review of the record demonstrates, however,
that the maintenancemen and bellmen must be
included in the requested unit of manual hotel
employees because, despite their apparent separate
supervision, they perform manual hotel functions
and regularly and frequently interchange duties with
the housekeeping and laundry employees.
On the basis of the foregoing and the record as a
whole, we find that the unit found appropriate by the
Acting Regional Director must be broadened to
include the classifications of bellmen and mainte-
nancemen . Accordingly,, the following unit is found
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All housekeeping, laundry, and maintenance
employees and bellmen, employed by the Employ-
er at- its East Boston, Massachusetts, location; but
and the other hotel employees, particularly porter-bellmen and housekeep-
ing employees.
10 The Acting Regional Director found, on the basis of the record and
the stipulation of the parties, that General Manager Orville Steele, Food
and Beverage Manager Gary Swindon, Assistant Food and Beverage
Manager Roger Small , Front Office Manager Robert Berk, Chef Ronald
Monng, Housekeeper , Dorothy Maddm, Head Hostess Shirley Connolly,
and Sales Manager Nancy Kenney are supervisors within the meaning of
the Act, and he, therefore, excluded them from the unit. The parties have
excluding waitresses, waiters, hostesses, cashiers,
bus help, cooks, utility workers, bartenders,
banquet workers, desk clerks, night auditor, PBX
operators, general manager, food and beverage
manager, assistant food and beverage manager,
sales representatives, front desk manager, sales
manager, chef, bookkeepers, head hostess, house-
keeper, head, maintenanceman, secretaries, of-
fice clerical employees, management trainees,
guards, confidential employees, and supervisors 10
as defined in the Act.
As the Petitioner has indicated, in the alternative, a
willingness to proceed to an election in a larger unit,
the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 1 for the purpose of conducting an
election pursuant to the Decision and Direction of
Election of the Acting Regional Director, as modi-
fied herein, except that the payroll period for
determining 'eligibility shall be that immediately
preceding the date of issuance of this Decision on
Review." [ Excelsior footnote omitted from publica-
tion.]
not requested review of this finding.
11 As the unit found appropriate herein is broader than the unit sought
by the Petitioner , conduct of the election is conditioned upon the
Petitioner 's demonstrating, within 10 days from the date hereof , that it has
an adequate showing of interest in the broader unit found appropriate. In
the event the Petitioner does not wish to participate in an election in the unit
found appropriate, we shall permit it to withdraw its petition without
prejudice upon notice to the Regional Director within 5 days from the date
of this Decision on Review